Mr. Pranav S/O. Omkarrao Kale And 3 ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6839 Bom

                                              1                              19-apl-762-18j.odt

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 762 OF 2018

  1. Mr. Pranav S/o. Omkarrao Kale,
     Age 32 years, Occ. Service,

  2. Sau. Kanta Omkarrao Kale,
     Age 60 years, Occ. Service,

  3. Mr. Omkarrao Panduji Kale,
     Age 68 years, Occ. Retired,

  4. Mr. Saurabh S/o. Omkarrao Kale,
     Age 30 years, Occ. Medical Practitioner,

      All R/o. Plot No. 49, Sector C,
      Kasturba Nagar, Bhopal (MP).                                      . . . APPLICANTS

                         ...V E R S U S..

  1. State of Maharashtra through
     its Police Station Officer,
     Police Station Hudkeshwar,
     Nagpur.

  2. Sau. Pranjali W/o. Pranav Kale,
     Age 28 years, Occ. Not known,
     R/o. C/o. Subhashrao Agarkar,
     Dubey Nagar, Hudkeshwar Road,
     Nagpur.                                                      . . NON-APPLICANTS

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri Rajnish R. Vyas, Advocate for applicants.
 Ms. Mayuri Deshmukh, A.P. P. for non-applicant no. 1/State.
 Shri M. P. Kariya, Advocate a/w. Ms. Smita Singalkar for non-applicant
 no. 2.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               CORAM :- Z. A. HAQ AND
                                        AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED :- 29.04.2021

2 19-apl-762-18j.odt

JUDGMENT (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) :-

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the applicants have challenged registration of the

First Information Report (FIR) and proceedings bearing Regular

Criminal Case No. 2544/2018 pending before the Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Court No.2, Nagpur for offences punishable under Sections

498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The FIR came to be registered against the applicants with

accusations that the applicants physically and mentally harassed the

non-applicant no. 2. It is alleged that on 23.11.2017, the applicant

no. 1 assaulted the non-applicant no. 2 and on 31.12.2017, demanded

an amount of ₹ 20 lakhs and car as dowry from the non-applicant 20 lakhs and car as dowry from the non-applicant

no. 2. It is further alleged that the applicants have cheated the non-

applicant no. 2 by posing that the applicant no. 1 (husband) is male

but, thereafter it is revealed that the applicant no. 1 is transgender.

5. The Investigating Agency carried out investigation and

recorded statements of the witnesses. The Investigating Agency filed

charge-sheet against the applicants on 10.07.2018 in the Court of

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2, Nagpur. The applicants

3 19-apl-762-18j.odt

have therefore challenged registration of the FIR and proceedings

bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 2544/2018.

6. This Court on 29.08.2018 issued notice to the non-

applicants. The non-applicant no. 1, in pursuance of the said notice

filed reply stating that learned Judicial Magistrate First Class before

whom the criminal case is pending does have jurisdiction to decide the

said criminal case. It is further stated that the applicants have

allegedly demanded of an amount of ₹ 20 lakhs and car as dowry from the non-applicant 20 lakhs and car and therefore,

ingredients of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian

Penal Code are made out. The non-applicant no. 2 has also filed her

reply stating the facts similar to the facts stated in the FIR. It is stated

in the reply that the applicants demanded an amount of ₹ 20 lakhs and car as dowry from the non-applicant 20 lakhs

and car as dowry and assaulted the non-applicant no. 2 on 23.11.2017.

It is further stated that the Investigating Agency has rightly registered

offence against the applicants.

7. We have carefully considered the allegations in the FIR and

material in the form of charge-sheet. The applicant no. 2 is mother-in-

law, the applicant no. 3 is father-in-law and the applicant no. 4 is

brother-in-law of the non-applicant no. 2- complainant. Now a days it

has become tendency to make vague and omnibus allegations against

every member of the family of husband involving everybody under

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code by making one or other

4 19-apl-762-18j.odt

allegations. Hence, it has become necessary for the Court to carefully

scrutinize the allegations and find out if the allegations made really

constitute an offence and meets the requirements of law at least

prima-facie.

8. It is true that while considering quashing of criminal case

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court should

not embark upon and enquire into truthfulness of the allegations made

by the complainant but, it becomes duty of the High Courts to

intervene in the case, where refusal to interfere would amount to

miscarriage of justice.

9. In the present case, we have carefully scrutinized the

allegations in the FIR and statement of the witnesses in the charge-

sheet. On careful consideration of the allegations in the FIR and

statement of the witnesses, it appears that the allegations against the

applicant nos. 2 to 4 are vague in nature. There is delay in registration

of the FIR, as the first incident alleged in the FIR is dated 28.04.2017

and the last incident is around 24.04.2018. The FIR is registered on

21.05.2018. From statement of the witnesses, it appears that

witnesses do not have personal knowledge of the allegations made in

the FIR, as all the witnesses are residing at Nagpur and the incident

mentioned in the FIR allegedly took place at Bhopal. The witnesses

have not disclosed source of information of statements made before

5 19-apl-762-18j.odt

investigating agency as all witnesses are residents of Nagpur and

alleged incidents have taken place at Bhopal. The allegations against

the non-applicant nos. 2 to 4 are general in nature.

10. In the case of K. Subba Rao Vs. State of Telangana, reported

in (2018) 14 SCC 452, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that

relatives of husband should not be roped in on the basis of vague

allegations, unless there are specific instances of their involvement in

the crime are made out. On consideration of the FIR and statement of

the witnesses, we are satisfied that the allegations against the

applicant nos. 2 to 4 are vague in nature and the prosecution launched

against the applicant nos. 2 to 4 is not legitimate.

11. Insofar as allegations against the applicant no. 1- husband

is concerned, there is no material placed on record in support of the

allegations in the FIR. The statement of witnesses recorded by the

Investigating Agency do not disclose source of the information. On

going through the statements, it is clear that witnesses do not have

personal knowledge about the allegations made in the FIR. We are

therefore satisfied that continuance of prosecution against the

applicants would amounts to abuse of process of Court.

6 19-apl-762-18j.odt

12. We, therefore, pass the following order:-

The proceedings of Regular Criminal Case No. 2544/2018

pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2, Nagpur

for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian

Penal Code against the applicants is quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPP) NOS. 1479/2018 & 171/2019

In view of the disposal of Criminal Application (APL) No.

762/2018, the Criminal Application (APPP) No. 1479/2018 praying

for grant of time to file typed copy of hand-written pages of charge-

sheet and Criminal Application (APPP) No. 171/2019 praying for

dispensing with typed copy of hand written pages of charge-sheet do

not survive. Both the Criminal Applications are disposed accordingly.

                             JUDGE                                           JUDGE


RR Jaiswal